 |
 |
Hi Tom. Is this level of response from Cochrane unprecedented? And can you share with us where you will publish the response? EBM journal? Thanks, David From: "Evidence based health (EBH)" <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Tom Jefferson <[log in to unmask]> Reply-To: Tom Jefferson <[log in to unmask]> Date: Tuesday, 4 September 2018 at 08:16 To: "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: R: Re: The Cochrane HPV vaccine review was incomplete and ignored important evidence of bias Spassiba Vasya. We will respond shortly and will let you know when it's done. Tom Inviato dal mio dispositivo Samsung -------- Messaggio originale -------- Da: Vasiliy Vlassov <[log in to unmask]> Data: 04/09/2018 08:08 (GMT+01:00) A: [log in to unmask] Oggetto: Re: The Cochrane HPV vaccine review was incomplete and ignored important evidence of bias Thank you, Ahmed Two main points of the DT response are (as I read it, probably biased by my own perversions): 1) fuck off; 2) we would prefer to manage it without involvement of the public. Lets wait till the trusted three authors take next step. I am quite sure they have words to say. Vasya On 2018-09-04 06:43, Manitoba Hunter wrote: I just came across the response from Cochrane (https://www.cochrane.org/sites/default/files/public/uploads/cochrane_hpv_response_3sep18.pdf). The highlights are also reported here (https://www.cochrane.org/news/cochranes-editor-chief-responds-bmj-ebm-article-criticizing-hpv-review) mainly: * The Cochrane Review did not miss "nearly half of the eligible trials". A small number of studies were missed due to the primary focus on peer-reviewed reports in scientific journals, but addition of these data makes little or no difference to the results of the review for the main outcome; * The trials comparators were unambiguously, transparently, and accurately described; * The selection of outcomes for benefits was appropriate and was consistent with World Health Organization guidance; * The review included published and unpublished data on serious harms, and the findings on mortality were reported transparently and responsibly; * The review was compliant with Cochrane’s current conflict of interest policy; * Cochrane’s media coverage was cautious and balanced, but we recognize that there could be improvements in relation to transparency where external experts are quoted; * The BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine article substantially overstated its criticisms. I haven’t had a chance to read the rebuttal in full detail so won’t comment but wanted to share so others can have a read as well. Cheers, Ahmed -- \/.\/.\/. Vasiliy V. Vlassov, MD President, Society for Evidence Based Medicine, osdm.org Professor, National Research University Higher School of Economics e-mail: vlassov[a t]cochrane.ru Web page https://www.hse.ru/en/org/persons/14527416 snail mail: P.O.Box 13 Moscow 109451 Russia Phone Russia +7(965)2511021 ________________________________ To unsubscribe from the EVIDENCE-BASED-HEALTH list, click the following link: https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=EVIDENCE-BASED-HEALTH&A=1 ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the EVIDENCE-BASED-HEALTH list, click the following link: https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=EVIDENCE-BASED-HEALTH&A=1